HARI SHANKER SANGHI Vs. G JAISURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenants in both the Courts below are the Revision Petitioners - respondents in R.C.C. No. 266/94 on the file of Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad and appellants in R.A. No. 249/97 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court at Hyderabad. The landlord is the respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition. The eviction petition R.C. No. 266/94 on the file of Additional Rent Controller at Secunderabad was filed by the landlord as petitioner with the following allegations:

(2.) A detailed counter was filed by the Revision Petitioners as tenants denying all the allegations. It was stated in the counter that the petitioner who filed the eviction petition i.e., the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition is one of the sons of Sri G. Eshwar Rao, lessor-owner and the said G. Eshwar Rao created tenancy in their favour and there is a written agreement dated 22-2-1980 and this fact was suppressed in the eviction petition by the landlord. It was also stated that Sri G. Eshwar Rao has been shown in the petition as "late" which is denied. It was also pleaded that he has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court the validity of the release deed dated 8-6-1993 and more so when there is no evidence about the demise of Sri Eshwar Rao, the owner-lessor. It was further pleaded that even though the originally agreed rent as per lessee was Rs.225.00 per month, it was on 1-12-1984 fresh terms of tenancy had been settled with the owner-lessor and the same has been acted upon i.e., 1-12-1984 and as per the terms of the fresh tenancy, the rate of rent payable is Rs.270.00 per month which is being collected by one of the owners of the lessor Sri G. Eshwar Rao, namely, G. Jaisurya and a Xerox copy of the rental agreement dated 22-7-1980 and the Xerox copy of the deed dated 1-12-1984 also had been filed. It was also stated that Sri G. Eshwar Rao had also received Rs.10,000.00 from the tenants declaring that he had let out the premises perpetually making thereby that the tenants shall have the right to continue the tenancy so long as they require the premises on payment of rent as stated therein and that the lessor will not claim eviction. It was also pleaded that the present eviction petitioner claiming under the original lessor also is bound by the said terms. It was also stated that the eviction petitioner is put to strict proof of the allegation that Sri G. Eshwar Rao, is either dead or has left Hyderabad subsequent to Dec. 1984 and his whereabouts are not known and these matters can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court by a decree of declaration only. No doubt, in the counter it was admitted that there are the tenants of ground floor mulgi on the Southern side of the property and the entire first floor bearing municipal No. 2-1-65 & 66, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad and the said building is a non-residential one and that they had established their business having goodwill and have been carrying on business in textiles. It was pleaded that the alleged attornment does not arise and the ground of wilful default in payment of property tax is neither true nor tenable and nothing was due and payable on account of property tax to M.C.H. on the date of filing of the eviction petition and several details had been in fact narrated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter. However in the last portion of paragraph-6, it was specifically stated "As pleaded above, the lessor Sri G. Eshwar Rao entered into specific agreement by receiving an amount of Rs.10,000.00 from the respondents apart from the deposit amount of Rs.675.00 already in deposit as on 1-12-1984. The terms and conditions debar the lessor and the persons claiming under him to file eviction petition". At paragraph-9 of the counter it was specifically pleaded "The allegation that it is an old building is not denied. The Act has no application where the understanding is for long lease or for perpetual lease or lease to continue at the option of the tenant, the Act has no application". Subsequent thereto by way of an amendment, the eviction petition was amended by adding paragraph 5(a), which reads as follows:-

(3.) In the light of the introduction of paragraph 5(a) in the eviction petition, an additional counter was filed by the Revision Petitioners-tenants, in which again the receipt-cum-agreement dated 1-12-1984 had been relied upon with over-emphasis.